In Australia - Moira Deeming defamation trial now on

[TheSandgroper]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-17/moira-deeming-john-pesutto-defamation-trial-day-two/104360100

This is from our very TRA ABC. Please note the comment from “Mr Southwick, a Jewish MP re Angie Jones’ tweet”. Well, Angie Jones is as Jewish as they come but they don’t say that.

Also, for, those who don’t know, see Angie on m.youtube.com/@TERFTalkDownUnder, though she hasn’t posted for a while. Some really good interviews.

She was warned the Nazis could turn up, on listening to the audio, part of the issue was the party expected she would talk to them to formulate a comms strategy should that happen (e.g. risk mitigation) and she didn't. Despite having had coaching that that was what she was expected to do after the previous 2 incidents.

Again, not unreasonable on the party's behalf I don't think.

Turn it around. What do you think the party should have done? Ignored the fact she completely went against their advice, hadn't learnt from previous events and expose them to reputational damage as a result? It sounds like they felt it was catastrophic to some strategy they had ("Redleg", whatever that is).

The fact is at some point the rubber meets the road, one's colleagues aren't always one's friends and they could put the organisation above the individual. That's just how life works.

It’s just mud slinging, always directed at women.

But don’t forget that Cassie is a feminist.

You have now pivoted from saying a person simply attending a women’s rights rally (where no laws were broken by the women nor were they expected to) and presenting a constituent’s words should avoid doing so because of abusers’ actions that means a false and ridiculous label will be abusively applied, to a person attending a protest where they can expect one of the protestors to destroy property and commit an illegal act.

And you are accusing me of false equivalences?

Yes of course.
But those pro-life views are controversial to a lot of people and it is not hypocritical of them to 1) say so and 2) not vote for her because of it

“Despite having had coaching that that was what she was expected to do after the previous 2 incidents”

Just a reminder to readers that those 2 incidents being referred to were two speeches about women and girl’s rights.

No. The idea is if you have a high profile job you do due diligence on people you are publicly supporting

Moira Deeming was supporting a Let Women Speak event. Your problem is KJK who you seem irrationally obsessed with.

I'm accusing you of using false equivalence in how you construct your argument, yes.

And repeatedly strawmanning me and extrapolating what I say. I did not say anything like what you've portrayed me as saying.

I keep saying I would really like to discuss the case. And that's impossible when posters like you come back with "so you think women should be called Nazis and Bigots for attending an event". It's untrue and unhelpful.

It's not "hypocrisy" for people to expect the person who is their proxy in government to represent their views. And it's not "hypocrisy" to challenge views one doesn't like.

You would be right at home in North Korea or Russia

Fucking hell, I wander into another thread and Cassie is yet again, banging on about KJK! Have a day off!

It’s just mud slinging, always directed at women.

To be fair, I have seen mud slinging directed at men.

But then that was always to smear a woman by association.

This is a bit like that Bechdel test thing. Test here is can we locate any criticism that isn't of a woman, or in some way used against a woman?

Yes of course.
But those pro-life views are controversial to a lot of people and it is not hypocritical of them to 1) say so and 2) not vote for her because of it

And? Voting is a choice, voters decide who to vote for based on their beliefs and opinions, not yours or anyone else's.

Just a reminder to readers that those 2 incidents being referred to were two speeches about women and girl’s rights.

Do you have any details which ones specifically? Would like to read/watch. I linked one she made below.

I'm accusing you of using false equivalence in how you construct your argument, yes.

You mean like comparing MD attending a LWS rally where women were given the opportunity to speak, which both transactivists and neoNazis gatecrashed despite police being there to stop them, to

If a Green MP went to a "Just Stop Oil" protest where protestors threw paint on a landmark

In the same way as I'd express my views about politicians campaigning on a TWAW ticket,

Really? Not from what I've seen you say on here you wouldn't.

Any risk mitigation has to be provided by those in authority. Yes 'comms' people can be ready with smooth talking, but the fact is that the risk mitigation should have been done by the police. Because the risk of being associated with Nazis was only present because the women weren't protected from said Nazis who instead were allowed to be far too close for comfort.
Which rather goes back to the idea that for all those who are annoyed about women speaking, the circular argument of 'stop speaking because you know you'll be called a nazi, because you've been called a nazi before' is now their go-to approach.

You mean like comparing MD attending a LWS rally where women were given the opportunity to speak, which both transactivists and neoNazis gatecrashed despite police being there to stop them, to

If a Green MP went to a "Just Stop Oil" protest where protestors threw paint on a landmark

The trans rights activists were the ones being violent and disruptive, not women. As ever.

would you? If you want to focus on the case why did you derail that by bringing in the irrelevant topic of Deemings pro life views?

By the way, here is the first ‘incident’ that seems to have caused concern. I apologise for it being on Facebook.

Here Moira Deeming makes clear her family’s background as elected representatives in the Labour Party and in trade unions and how it was bullying and coerced speech in the trade unions and the Labour Party that made her change to the Liberal Party.

https://www.facebook.com/MoiraDeemingMP/videos/judge-for-yourself-my-maiden-speech-to-parliament/1497520223990710/

It also was very clear speaking about her own experiences as a teacher and how gender identity had been negatively impacting her students and herself and other teachers. And those issues she experienced are pretty much issues discussed here for years. And issues contained in the Cass report too.

This is the ‘first incident’ remember.

Care to then clarify what you meant by the below post then, if I have strawmanned you?

Would you like to clarify how you are not advocating that people should not speak or attend events because of the abusive actions of the people protesting the event with this comment?

“You misunderstand me. 2 mins on the Internet would show that TRAs would call anyone at a KJK rally a nazi. In fact Deeming commented on posts to that effect before the rally. Therefore she knew it was a possibility and it's strange to me she's trying to blame Pesutto for that bit of it.”

Not sure how do entangle this. 'Expressing my opinion is not making things up. But if I say someone is controversial it's a fact.'
What happens if I find your opinions controversial - will you stop expressing them.

Here is the transcript for the above speech, Eresh has posted.

I believe this the the ‘second incident’ just for reader’s reference.

www.parliament.vic.gov.au/parliamentary-activity/hansard/hansard-details/hansard-974425065-20509

So now we can see the ‘two incidents’ that I believe have been referred to.

It's an interesting concept - Politicians must not hold or have personal beliefs and opinions, they must only have approved beliefs and opinions, it is reminding me of somewhere and something just can't put my finger on it.

I know. It is rather concerning. I would really prefer not to have a political party that simply produced drones who never deviated from the party line. It is also why I have rarely just voted for a party because of their national or state level manifesto. And researched local policy initiatives.

Here is an interesting fact, the Catholic Church was very much a part of the Australian Labor Party’s history. Due to the Irish Catholic workforce who unionised their trades. And the other immigrants with Catholic beliefs such as the Italians. I believe Anthony Albanese grew up as a boy involved in his church.

I wonder though, how many of those Australian Labour Party members of parliament fully supported abortion. Or maybe, they eventually settled to support a woman’s right to choose while not personally supporting it.